On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:56:28AM -0800, David Johnston wrote:
> If you are doing version controlled upgrades you should not be using this
> function but during the R&D phase I can imagine it would come in quite
> handy.
Or add Tom's remarks to a little corner of contrib/, or as Tom
suggested, th
On 04/02/2014 19:56, David Johnston wrote:
No, they cannot. If the arguments change you are dealing with an entirely
new object. And often you end up keeping the old function around for
backward-compatibility.
Of course, I understand that it's a different object, technically, but
from the user
* David Johnston (pol...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Evan Martin wrote
> > So I don't agree with the suggestion of matching function names using a
> > regex, since that's not supported for other types of objects. To explain
> > the use case a little better:
Uh, we could add such support, which might be
Evan Martin wrote
> In a nutshell: I think the difficulty of dropping functions is
> inconsistent with the difficulty of dropping other objects and I'd like
> to see this inconsistency fixed.
>
> So I don't agree with the suggestion of matching function names using a
> regex, since that's not s
Tom Lane-2 wrote
> I wonder whether we shouldn't address this by adding a few examples
> of that type of trick to the docs. Not sure where, though ...
Probably the Wiki would be a better place to put this kind of material. A
link to there from "21. Managing Database" would seem to be most
approp
